It's time to take a look at the bills up in tomorrow's Texas House Law Enforcement Committee that deserve Grits readers' attention. I've already mentioned legislation on the agenda that would gut Texas' Forensic Science Commission, but here are the rest of the high and lowlights:
Guns and Traveling, Once and For All
HB 1815 by Isett: This bill would settle the debate in Texas once and for all over traveling with a firearm in a personal vehicle. Last session legislators thought they'd fixed this problem by passing HB 823, but some prosecutors refused to abide by the new law and continued to tell police to make arrests when they found someone with a concealed weapon in a personal vehicle. I filed a bunch of open records requests on the subject last year and authored a public policy report (pdf) released last month that identified DAs who flouted the law. HB 1815 contains clear language that should simply resolve the question once and for all by redefining the crime of unlawfully carrying a weapon (UCW) as not applying if a person is "inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control." That should setlle the question and stop the legal hairsplitting some DAs have engaged in to continue to harass otherwise law abiding motorists who carry guns in their vehicles.
Will TCLEOSE regulate officer misconduct, or not?
I find Rep. Brian Hughes' HB 2813 an interesting piece of legislation because it appears to fly in the face of two bills the Law Enforcement Committee already approved (discussed here), so I don't quite understand why the chair gave it a hearing. Hughes' bill would expand the authority of investigators for the state police licensing agency, the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education. However, last week the committee approved Chairman Driver's HCR 96, which called for a moratorium on expanding authority under the section of code Hughes' bill would alter. Even more interesting, the Chairman's HB 488 strips TCLEOSE of all regulatory authority, leaving local prosecutors as the only agents capable of causing an officer to lose his or her license (under the bill, officers' licenses can only be revoked if they commit a crime). Given that context, I don't understand a) why Hughes' bill wouldn't violate the HCR 96 moratorim, and b) what these newly empowered police officers would investigate if HB 488 passes. I generally support greater investigatory power for agencies investigating law enforcement corruption, but I'm not sure empowering TCLEOSE officers make much sense if the agency's regulatory authority may be curtailed
Technocorrections for Drunks
HB 934 by Harper Brown would require manatory ignition interlocks for everyone given probation for DWI, changing a provision that says judges "may" order interlocks to say they "shall" do so in every case. For my part, I think ignition interlocks may well be part of a long-term solution for drunk driving, but they're not free and even if probationers pay for them, ignition interlocks still require extra staff and resources for monitoring the devices (which record how often drivers' blow and are disallowed from driving). For my part, I'd like to see this policy begun on the second or third offense, not for every drunk driver receiving probation. Repeat drunk drivers are the big problem - the vast majority who are arrested for DWI once are never arrested again. Besides, a program like this should start smaller to see if it's effective before expanding it to every drunk driving arrest in the state. Still, with those modifications this could be a bill I'd support - technocorrections for DWI IMO show great promise.
Should citizens pay a fee to have charges dismissed?
HB 588 by Gonzalez-Toureilles has to be one of the most ill-conceived pieces of legislation I've seen this year. Though it's just a small bill, I find it particularly offensive that if it were to become law, motorists who receive dismissals on alleged traffic violations must pay a $10 processing fee to the court. What hogwash! Why not make the police department pay that fee to the courts? They're the ones who gave a ticket that wasted the court's time and the defendant's. Forcing defendants to pay a fee after the court ruled they never actually broke the law and dismissed the case makes a mockery of justice and fairness. They didn't ask to be pulled over, didn't ask to be given a bogus ticket, and have already take time out to contest the ticket to seek dismissal. Mulcting them with fees, anyway, just piles on injury to insult. OTOH - if you made police departments pay court fees when tickets are dismissed, and it would create a financial incentive for officers to only bring forward stronger cases. If the fees are needed, that's who should pay them in my opinion.
So those are the highlights from tomorrow's Texas House Law Enforcement Committee hearing. If your representative sits on the commitee, be sure to let them know what you think about these bills.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Saturday Morning Roundup
Here are a few recent Texas criminal justice news stories that caught my attention but I haven't found time to blog about:
Meanwhile, a few more items from outside of Texas also aroused my interest, and I thought I'd share them here:
Meanwhile, a few more items from outside of Texas also aroused my interest, and I thought I'd share them here:
Friday, March 23, 2007
House Budget Expands Treatment, No New Prisons
After learning earlier this week that the Texas Senate Finance Committee approved funding for three new prison units housing 4,000 inmates, I was glad to learn that the newly released House budget does NOT include similar funding for prison bond charges, at least so far.
Texas Criminal Justice Coalition Executive Director Ana Correa, who has analyzed the House budget and spoken to Appropriations Committee staff, confirmed today that the current draft of the House Appropriations bill anticipates no new prison building. That could conceivably change on the House floor (just as new prisons could conceivably be stripped out of the Senate budget), but in all likelihood this news sets up a conference committee showdown where the matter will be ultimately decided.
To be clear - nobody has suggested NOT funding Madden and Whitmire's treatment program. It's just that the Senate wants to build three new prisons, too, at a cost of $100 million per year for 20 years. Meanwhile, the House calculates that expanding secure treatment beds by 6,100 and boosting the parole rate a few points will be enough to avert the current crisis. The Senate leadership's "overabundance of caution," as Chairman Whitmire called it, or whatever is driving them toward new prison building, is unnecessary and counterproductive. I'm hopeful competing budget demands will quash the idea before the end of the story is told.
Texas Criminal Justice Coalition Executive Director Ana Correa, who has analyzed the House budget and spoken to Appropriations Committee staff, confirmed today that the current draft of the House Appropriations bill anticipates no new prison building. That could conceivably change on the House floor (just as new prisons could conceivably be stripped out of the Senate budget), but in all likelihood this news sets up a conference committee showdown where the matter will be ultimately decided.
To be clear - nobody has suggested NOT funding Madden and Whitmire's treatment program. It's just that the Senate wants to build three new prisons, too, at a cost of $100 million per year for 20 years. Meanwhile, the House calculates that expanding secure treatment beds by 6,100 and boosting the parole rate a few points will be enough to avert the current crisis. The Senate leadership's "overabundance of caution," as Chairman Whitmire called it, or whatever is driving them toward new prison building, is unnecessary and counterproductive. I'm hopeful competing budget demands will quash the idea before the end of the story is told.
The Justice Project: Don't gut Texas' Forensic Science Commission before it gets off the ground
Edwin Colfax, Director of State Reform Campaigns at the Austin office of The Justice Project, emailed today with concerns about HB 2832 by Driver which is up in the House Law Enforcement Committee on Monday. More soon on the rest of the committee's agenda, but I thought I'd share Colfax's critique with Grits readers:
HB 2832 completely rewrites the statute authorizing the Forensic Science Commission (FSC) in a way that is unnecessary and undermines its independence, thus putting at risk approximately $1.5 million in federal forensic science improvement funds.UPDATE: AP (3/25) has an excellent story on why forensic science commissions in Texas and other states have yet to hear a case despite a dire, pressing need for their services.
Texas has plenty of first hand experience with negligence and misconduct in forensic science. The Houston Crime Lab debacle is only the most famous, but serious problems have surfaced in other local jurisdictions and the DPS lab. The Forensic Science Commission was created last session to provide fully independent, external oversight. It has so far been given no appropriations to hire staff and start working, but the Senate has provided for the FSC budget in the current session.
The Commission has sought some clarification and guidance about its nuts and bolts operation and the extent of its authority. This is natural for a new commission. The needed guidance can be provided without radically restructuring the statute.
This commission has not been given the opportunity to even get off the ground because of no appropriation. A budget for staff and investigation has been provided in the Senate appropriations process. Once the Commission is staffed, staff will have the opportunity to work through these concerns. We should give the existing structure the opportunity to work before radically changing it.
The proposed bill takes away the supervisory authority over investigations from the FSC and gives it to the director of DPS. The FSC is also to be housed and staffed by DPS. All these things (especially the first) compromise the independence of the Commission.
The intent was to provide for independent external investigations regarding allegations of professional negligence or misconduct. The commission should be in charge of overseeing investigations. If allegations regarding a DPS lab are at issue, it is undesirable to have DPS hand-pick and contract with an investigator to investigate itself. This is unnecessary because the FSC will have a budget and staff to do this.
By compromising the independence and externality of the investigative supervision, the proposed bill places in jeopardy approximately $1.5 million per biennium in federal grants through the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Program. These funds are now contingent on a state providing for independent, external review of allegations of forensic negligence or misconduct.
The bill eliminates the duty of accredited labs to report allegations of professional negligence or misconduct to the Forensic Science Commission. Essentially, the only duty for the Forensic Science Commission under the bill is to perform a superficial review of any allegations it happens to receive, and forward ones it deems credible to the DPS.
Under the bill, the Forensic Science Commission has no control or oversight over the conduct and reporting of investigations into forensic negligence or misconduct. Its only role under the bill is to provide a superficial review of any allegations it happens to receive, and forward credible ones to DPS. That guts the Commission of the substantive oversight powers it was created to exercize.
The legislature’s intent was to create a mechanism independent and external of law enforcement bureaucracies, to review and investigate allegations of professional negligence or misconduct. The proposed restructuring is at odds with that goal.
Marlin TYC Superintendent arrested for alleged coverup
In what I think is his first post on Texas Monthly's Burka Blog, Nate Blakeslee reports that:
In addition, Hart's piece on alleged abuses of the mentally ill at the Lubbock State School is must-read blogging. Read the full report from the Department of Justice.
UPDATE: See local TV coverage of Parsee's arrest.
NUTHER UPDATE: Harvey Kronberg at Quorum Report has more TYC news tidbits today, starting with:
The superintendent of the Marlin Orientation and Assessment Unit, a juvenile correctional facility near Waco, was arrested this morning on charges of giving a false report to an investigator, according to Falls County District Attorney Jody Gilliam. The superintendent, Jerome Parsee, allegedly gave false information to investigators about sexual misconduct that occurred on the unit involving inmates and at least one female correctional officer. Parsee was questioned by a Texas Ranger in recent weeks as part of an ongoing investigation of abuse in the youth corrections system that began last month in the wake of the sex abuse scandal at the West Texas State School in Pyote.Marlin is the unit where every single kid sentenced to TYC passes through for "orientation and assessment." See more good TYC coverage at BurkaBlog from Patricia Kilday Hart and Paul Burka.
In addition, Hart's piece on alleged abuses of the mentally ill at the Lubbock State School is must-read blogging. Read the full report from the Department of Justice.
UPDATE: See local TV coverage of Parsee's arrest.
NUTHER UPDATE: Harvey Kronberg at Quorum Report has more TYC news tidbits today, starting with:
MORE TYC DEVELOPMENTS: TYC also announced further staff shake ups today. The agency has begun termination proceedings against Deputy General Counsel Emily Helm and Youth Care Investigations Director Ray Worsham after the two decided not to resign their posts, according to agency spokesman Jim Hurley. He declined to go into specifics but said that findings from an inspector general's report led to the decision to let the pair go. Worsham was suspended two weeks ago for allegedly changing documents related to suspected abuse at the TYC facility in Pyote.Ray Worsham was named by a Texas Ranger testifying at the Legislature as someone at TYC who knew early on about allegations of sexual abuse by administrators. Kronberg also reported that Special Master Jay Kimbrough plans to review all sentences of TYC students that were extended while in custody. Harvey reported:
TYC Special Master Jay Kimbrough announced today that he’s recommending a review of all TYC inmates whose sentences were extended while in custody with the aim of releasing all inmates whose added time cannot be justified.
The long-term impact could be enormous as 93 percent of all TYC inmates have had their sentence extended, according to Will Harrell, the executive director of the ACLU of Texas who sat with Kimbrough for the announcement. Currently, the TYC system holds more than 4,000 inmates.
If a significant chunk of those inmates are found to have been given unjustified extensions, the TYC population could shrink drastically. Although Kimbrough does not have the authority to order the review himself, he stressed his belief that something needs to be done immediately.
"Based on what I have seen so far, I have no confidence in the integrity of that entire system," he said. "I fear there may be youths who have been retained or extended where there is little or no documentation or where there is little or no logic to support the decision that was made in the first place."
House Corrections to tackle TYC and DWI courts
The agenda for Monday's Texas House Corrections committee meeting was scrapped and replaced with a new one that focuses on TYC, plus one bill from Rep. Hochberg related to drug courts.
T-Y-C ... Easy As 1-2-3
Madden's HB 427 will go back to committee to strip off Rep. Dunnam's floor amendment that generated such controversy. See the links for opinions of bloggers who watched it - I missed Wednesday's spectacle.
HB 3309 by Bolton would allow sexual assault victims groups to provide services to kids at TYC facilities. Personally I wish the committee would amend the bill to allow the same thing at facilities run by the Department of Corrections.
HB 3521 by Bolton (n.b., corrected from original) would disallow TYC from employing anyone convicted of a crime involving a child, no matter how long ago it occurred and empower the Attorney General to investigate abuse and neglect at TYC, creates an Inspector General to investigate and prosecute crimes, and establishes complaint process for the agency.
If there's GR for prisons, there's GR for drug courts
Finally we come to HB 1875 by Hochberg, an otherwise good bill which contains what I consider a single problematic element in its funding component. The bill allows for drunk driving courts and increases judicial discretion regarding probation requirements in drug courts. The one troublesome section: It also increases the fee on personal bonds (from 3% to 6% of bail amount) in counties with drug courts. That could boost local jail overcrowding, keeping more defendants in jail prior to trial for no other reason than that they are poor.
Personal bonds, where they are available, allow judges to release defendants from jail when they cannot pay the 10-20% fee usually charged by bail bondsmen. Even if someone can afford a surety bond, release on personal bond allows them to use money they would have spent on bail to hire an attorney, pay court costs, victim restitution, etc
And that's the full slate for Monday, unless something is added at the last minute. TYC has really come to dominate the 80th session on criminal justice, hasn't it?
T-Y-C ... Easy As 1-2-3
Madden's HB 427 will go back to committee to strip off Rep. Dunnam's floor amendment that generated such controversy. See the links for opinions of bloggers who watched it - I missed Wednesday's spectacle.
HB 3309 by Bolton would allow sexual assault victims groups to provide services to kids at TYC facilities. Personally I wish the committee would amend the bill to allow the same thing at facilities run by the Department of Corrections.
HB 3521 by Bolton (n.b., corrected from original) would disallow TYC from employing anyone convicted of a crime involving a child, no matter how long ago it occurred and empower the Attorney General to investigate abuse and neglect at TYC, creates an Inspector General to investigate and prosecute crimes, and establishes complaint process for the agency.
If there's GR for prisons, there's GR for drug courts
Finally we come to HB 1875 by Hochberg, an otherwise good bill which contains what I consider a single problematic element in its funding component. The bill allows for drunk driving courts and increases judicial discretion regarding probation requirements in drug courts. The one troublesome section: It also increases the fee on personal bonds (from 3% to 6% of bail amount) in counties with drug courts. That could boost local jail overcrowding, keeping more defendants in jail prior to trial for no other reason than that they are poor.
Personal bonds, where they are available, allow judges to release defendants from jail when they cannot pay the 10-20% fee usually charged by bail bondsmen. Even if someone can afford a surety bond, release on personal bond allows them to use money they would have spent on bail to hire an attorney, pay court costs, victim restitution, etc
And that's the full slate for Monday, unless something is added at the last minute. TYC has really come to dominate the 80th session on criminal justice, hasn't it?
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's
I wasn't paying attention or I might have gone down yesterday to listen to oral arguments at the state supreme court in this case, which will decide whether Texas' Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by then-Gov.-now-President George Bush prohibits municipalities from restricting religious prison ministries within their boundaries. This case of first impression comes out of Nueces County, where
Supposedly the oral arguments can be viewed online here, but I couldn't make the viewer work on either Firefox or Explorer, so I don't know what gives there. Here are the briefs and amici in the case.
Of all major religions, Christianity holds a special place for prisoners, largely as a result of Romans' role in martyring Jesus, then their persecution first of Christ's Jewish followers in Palestine and later Pauline Christians throughout the Roman Empire before the rise of Constantine. The New Testament in particular depicts many saints imprisoned, even writing books of the Bible while incarcerated. According to the author of Acts, God once even sponsored a jail break!
All this to say, even a cursory scriptural reading reveals that prison ministries are a central part of Christianity's founding tenets. So it follows, IMO, that in a society committed to religious freedom, a Christian's freedom to minister to prisoners shouldn't be limited by petty secular laws like zoning.
The Psalms tell us that the Lord heareth the poor and despiseth not his prisoners. We'll find out soon if that's also true of the Texas Supreme Court.
The Philemon Homes ministry was started by Pastor Rick Barr to rehabilitate and assist non-violent criminals released from prison. Soon after the establishment of the ministry, the city of Sinton passed a zoning ordinance banning the ministry from existing within city limits.I know a lot of folks at my old employer who weren't fans of the Religious Freedom Restoration law, but I noticed they signed on to an amicus brief in support of Pastor Barr. I always supported the law for precisely this reason - increasingly municipalities, often at the behest of NIMBY-style neighborhood activists, simply aren't letting facilities that provide treatment or re-entry services to prisoners receive zoning in the locations where they're needed. This statute, at least if the Supreme Court holds for Pastor Barr, insists that religious ministries can't be restricted by such pruderies. I wish that were true for all re-entry work, but you take a long hike one step at a time. If it also results in letting an urban church expand its parking lot against neighborhood objections, perhaps that's the price of religious freedom?
Pastor Barr sought recourse under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but a Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi ruled in favor of the city. The court ruled the law did not protect the pastor or the ministry. Today the Supreme Court of Texas heard oral arguments in the case. This will be the first time the Texas Supreme Court has interpreted the law.
Supposedly the oral arguments can be viewed online here, but I couldn't make the viewer work on either Firefox or Explorer, so I don't know what gives there. Here are the briefs and amici in the case.
Of all major religions, Christianity holds a special place for prisoners, largely as a result of Romans' role in martyring Jesus, then their persecution first of Christ's Jewish followers in Palestine and later Pauline Christians throughout the Roman Empire before the rise of Constantine. The New Testament in particular depicts many saints imprisoned, even writing books of the Bible while incarcerated. According to the author of Acts, God once even sponsored a jail break!
All this to say, even a cursory scriptural reading reveals that prison ministries are a central part of Christianity's founding tenets. So it follows, IMO, that in a society committed to religious freedom, a Christian's freedom to minister to prisoners shouldn't be limited by petty secular laws like zoning.
The Psalms tell us that the Lord heareth the poor and despiseth not his prisoners. We'll find out soon if that's also true of the Texas Supreme Court.
'Let's be honest': There will never be enough jails to solve immigration
Here's a tidbit of truth you don't hear very often from our nation's border enforcers, from Fox News, no less:
I wonder how that 'guest worker' program is coming?
"Let's be honest, there isn't enough jail space to incarcerate everyone who crosses that border," said [T.J.] Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council. "If everyone demanded hearing in front of an immigration judge, it would bring our system to a grinding halt in a matter of days."He's right. As a practical matter there's no conceivable way to expand incarceration capacity enough for enforcement alone to solve immigration problems, and no free society should desire it.
I wonder how that 'guest worker' program is coming?
Is there a relationship between frou-frou ties and bad public policy?
I noticed this story that said Texas Lt. Governor David Dewhurst's ties had been criticized. Funny, lately I've objected to his policies more than his accessories. Still, I did a quick search and thought I'd solicit readers' opinion on whether his ties deserve criticism.
I mean, sure, this one is a little on the frou-frou side for my tastes:
Okay so several of his ties run on the frou-frou side:
I haven't seen Dewhurst in this tie for a while, perhaps because of its unflattering resemblance to his complexion.:
OTOH, it could be worse.
Wait ... hold on just a moment. I'm being interrupted with this update:
It turns out it was his ties to energy giant TXU that were being criticized.
Apparently, his accessories are fine. It's just his policies (and on occasion, his historical analysis) that one might find objectionable. ;)
I mean, sure, this one is a little on the frou-frou side for my tastes:
Okay so several of his ties run on the frou-frou side:
I haven't seen Dewhurst in this tie for a while, perhaps because of its unflattering resemblance to his complexion.:
OTOH, it could be worse.Wait ... hold on just a moment. I'm being interrupted with this update:
It turns out it was his ties to energy giant TXU that were being criticized.
Apparently, his accessories are fine. It's just his policies (and on occasion, his historical analysis) that one might find objectionable. ;)
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Drug courts, medical parole moving, but bills reducing police accountability mar criminal justice work in House this week
Having looked at criminal justice legislation passed in Senate committees, let's examine this week's action in the Texas House:
House Corrections
A couple of good bills by Chairman Jerry Madden made it out of committee this week, while his big probation bill (discussed here) was left pending for a week as is the chairman's custom. Madden's HB 2611 expanding medical parole made it out of committee. The fiscal note only assigned $1 million in savings to the bill over the first biennium, but depending on who is released it could easily be more than that. There are a small number of very expensive prisoners in TDCJ, a handful of whom cost the agency more than one million dollars each annually.
The Chairman's main drug court bill (HB 530, discussed here and here) passed with flying colors. The legislation would require all counties above 200,000 to have a drug court, state and federal funding permitting. Still, passing a bill and funding it are two different subjects. According to the fiscal note, "The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill."
Finally, Rep. Bohac got his bed time reading - a monthly emailed list of offenders getting out of prison or off community supervision would be sent to every legislator under HB 1453. Unless he intends to greet each of them with a fruit basket and a voter registration card, I still don't understand why he wants the information.
House Criminal Jurisprudence
This committee continues to churn out new penalty enhancements every week, despite the state's lingering prison overcrowding crisis. Just to run down this week's list, Chairman's Peña's enhancement for stealing copper wire (HB 1766) was approved, as was Rep. Delisi's HB 126 expanding the definition of organized criminal activity, and Charlie Geren's HB 1093 expanding the area around a funeral where protests are prohibited.
Thankfully the committee also kicked out a good bill from Scott Hochberg, HB 681 which requires the state to pay for postconviction DNA tests ordered by a judge. I was also glad to see them approve HB 1178 by Escobar, which would forbid District Attorneys from seeking waivers from defendants of their right to counsel. Both are good bills that deserve approval.
House Law Enforcement
To start out on a postive note, the House Law Enforcement Committee this week approved HCR 96, which I described here, calling for a moratorium on legislation creating new types of police agencies and a two-year study to reconcile the hodge podge of nickel and dime police forces with overlapping jurisdictions around the state.
But that modest achievement, I'm afraid, was the high point, and things went south quickly from there. The Committee also approved a couple of truly bad bills aimed at reducing police officer accountability. The first, HB 488 (discussed here), strips the state police officer licencing agency of meaningful regulatory authority. HB 1422 (discussed here) which closes records related to officer misconduct for DPS troopers. (The companion bill to HB 1422 also passed in Senate Criminal Justice this week.) These bills both head in the opposite direction the state needs to go given the enormous problems we've witnessed with police misconduct and the drug war.
Next, for reasons described here I think it was a particularly bad idea, the more I think of it, for the committee to approve this week HB 320 by Buddy West, which would allow any commercial business to scan the stripe on the back of your driver's license to electronically gather the information whenever you cash a check. There are simply no significant restrictions on how that data can be used, and by whom.
Finally, the Law Enforcement Committee couldn't help but get into the enhancement act, though they limited the damage to local county jails instead of sending more people to overcrowded prisons. They approved HB 855, described here, which expands the crime of failure to identify from people arrested to people merely "detained." That's a huge difference - I'm arrested when they cuff me and read me my rights. Whether someone is "detained" when an officer stops and begins to speak to them, though, can be a matter of significant dispute. Conceivably this could add a significant number of people to county jail populations.
So those are this week's high and lowlights. The new House budget was presented, but I haven't had a chance to review it yet to see what's in it on the criminal justice front. More soon previewing next weeks criminal justice committee hearings.
House Corrections
A couple of good bills by Chairman Jerry Madden made it out of committee this week, while his big probation bill (discussed here) was left pending for a week as is the chairman's custom. Madden's HB 2611 expanding medical parole made it out of committee. The fiscal note only assigned $1 million in savings to the bill over the first biennium, but depending on who is released it could easily be more than that. There are a small number of very expensive prisoners in TDCJ, a handful of whom cost the agency more than one million dollars each annually.
The Chairman's main drug court bill (HB 530, discussed here and here) passed with flying colors. The legislation would require all counties above 200,000 to have a drug court, state and federal funding permitting. Still, passing a bill and funding it are two different subjects. According to the fiscal note, "The bill would make no appropriation but could provide the legal basis for an appropriation of funds to implement the provisions of the bill."
Finally, Rep. Bohac got his bed time reading - a monthly emailed list of offenders getting out of prison or off community supervision would be sent to every legislator under HB 1453. Unless he intends to greet each of them with a fruit basket and a voter registration card, I still don't understand why he wants the information.
House Criminal Jurisprudence
This committee continues to churn out new penalty enhancements every week, despite the state's lingering prison overcrowding crisis. Just to run down this week's list, Chairman's Peña's enhancement for stealing copper wire (HB 1766) was approved, as was Rep. Delisi's HB 126 expanding the definition of organized criminal activity, and Charlie Geren's HB 1093 expanding the area around a funeral where protests are prohibited.
Thankfully the committee also kicked out a good bill from Scott Hochberg, HB 681 which requires the state to pay for postconviction DNA tests ordered by a judge. I was also glad to see them approve HB 1178 by Escobar, which would forbid District Attorneys from seeking waivers from defendants of their right to counsel. Both are good bills that deserve approval.
House Law Enforcement
To start out on a postive note, the House Law Enforcement Committee this week approved HCR 96, which I described here, calling for a moratorium on legislation creating new types of police agencies and a two-year study to reconcile the hodge podge of nickel and dime police forces with overlapping jurisdictions around the state.
But that modest achievement, I'm afraid, was the high point, and things went south quickly from there. The Committee also approved a couple of truly bad bills aimed at reducing police officer accountability. The first, HB 488 (discussed here), strips the state police officer licencing agency of meaningful regulatory authority. HB 1422 (discussed here) which closes records related to officer misconduct for DPS troopers. (The companion bill to HB 1422 also passed in Senate Criminal Justice this week.) These bills both head in the opposite direction the state needs to go given the enormous problems we've witnessed with police misconduct and the drug war.
Next, for reasons described here I think it was a particularly bad idea, the more I think of it, for the committee to approve this week HB 320 by Buddy West, which would allow any commercial business to scan the stripe on the back of your driver's license to electronically gather the information whenever you cash a check. There are simply no significant restrictions on how that data can be used, and by whom.
Finally, the Law Enforcement Committee couldn't help but get into the enhancement act, though they limited the damage to local county jails instead of sending more people to overcrowded prisons. They approved HB 855, described here, which expands the crime of failure to identify from people arrested to people merely "detained." That's a huge difference - I'm arrested when they cuff me and read me my rights. Whether someone is "detained" when an officer stops and begins to speak to them, though, can be a matter of significant dispute. Conceivably this could add a significant number of people to county jail populations.
So those are this week's high and lowlights. The new House budget was presented, but I haven't had a chance to review it yet to see what's in it on the criminal justice front. More soon previewing next weeks criminal justice committee hearings.
Senate criminal justice action: New prisons, new enhancements, closing records - a bad week
Before beginning previews of next week's criminal justice committee hearings, let's quickly review the most important actions taken by Texas legislative committees this week, starting with the Senate (I'll do House committees in a separate post):
Senate Finance
The big news of the week (though it's inexplicably yet to receive MSM coverage) was the Finance Committee's approval of funding for $34 million per year in debt payments for three new prisons. Not a peep was uttered during Tuesday's committee hearing about the estimated $72 million per year it will cost to staff and operate them! The Senate plan would ask voters to authorize six units total in a November election. See prior Grits coverage.
Senate Criminal Justice
Meanwhile, the Senate Criminal Justice Committee passed quite a few bills, including some real stinkers, in this writer's opinion.
The worst of the lot are two bills closing public records - SB 244 by Williams temporarily closing search warrant affidavits (adumbrated here), and SB 740 by Whitmire closting DPS officer misconduct records (see my write-up of the identical companion, HB 1422).
Sen. Florence Shapiro won approval for two more sex offender enhancements (SB 75 and SB 78 previewed here). What interests me most here are the fiscal notes. On SB 75, which requires a life sentence on the second offense for certain sex crimes against children, the Legislative Budget Board claims it will have no significant impact, even though by definition keeping more people in prison longer costs more money. After all, Texas prisons are 2,000 inmates over capacity right now. This is an example how underestimating fiscal notes contributes to red ink in the state budget.
Equally interesting is the fiscal note for SB 78, which is the companion to Jerry Madden's House bill grafted onto HB 8 (Jessica's Law) that's currently headed to the Senate floor. The fiscal note for HB 8 said it would cause no significant fiscal impact, while in SB 78's fiscal note LBB admits that new costs of the same legislation could not be known given current data! How much will Jessica's Law and other new sex offender enhancements cost? I still think it will be more than LBB is telling the Legislature.
Finally I'd be remiss not to mention two bills that I wouldn't call "bad," just not things I hold strong opinions about. First, on the technocorrections front, the committee approved SB 1061 which allows judges to order ignition interlocks for drivers whose licenses are suspended for refusing to take a breath test. (Again the fiscal note says the cost would be insignificant, but if it's true 40-45% of drivers refuse breath tests, the cost of the devices and their monitoring would be significant. In addition, Rep. Glenn Hegar's SB 534 allowing employees with concealed carry permits to leave their gun in their locked car in an employer's parking lot. Honestly I could go either way on both of those, but would be interested in readers' thoughts.
Now would be the time if you wanted to contact your state senator and let them know your druthers on these topics.
Senate Finance
The big news of the week (though it's inexplicably yet to receive MSM coverage) was the Finance Committee's approval of funding for $34 million per year in debt payments for three new prisons. Not a peep was uttered during Tuesday's committee hearing about the estimated $72 million per year it will cost to staff and operate them! The Senate plan would ask voters to authorize six units total in a November election. See prior Grits coverage.
Senate Criminal Justice
Meanwhile, the Senate Criminal Justice Committee passed quite a few bills, including some real stinkers, in this writer's opinion.
The worst of the lot are two bills closing public records - SB 244 by Williams temporarily closing search warrant affidavits (adumbrated here), and SB 740 by Whitmire closting DPS officer misconduct records (see my write-up of the identical companion, HB 1422).
Sen. Florence Shapiro won approval for two more sex offender enhancements (SB 75 and SB 78 previewed here). What interests me most here are the fiscal notes. On SB 75, which requires a life sentence on the second offense for certain sex crimes against children, the Legislative Budget Board claims it will have no significant impact, even though by definition keeping more people in prison longer costs more money. After all, Texas prisons are 2,000 inmates over capacity right now. This is an example how underestimating fiscal notes contributes to red ink in the state budget.
Equally interesting is the fiscal note for SB 78, which is the companion to Jerry Madden's House bill grafted onto HB 8 (Jessica's Law) that's currently headed to the Senate floor. The fiscal note for HB 8 said it would cause no significant fiscal impact, while in SB 78's fiscal note LBB admits that new costs of the same legislation could not be known given current data! How much will Jessica's Law and other new sex offender enhancements cost? I still think it will be more than LBB is telling the Legislature.
Finally I'd be remiss not to mention two bills that I wouldn't call "bad," just not things I hold strong opinions about. First, on the technocorrections front, the committee approved SB 1061 which allows judges to order ignition interlocks for drivers whose licenses are suspended for refusing to take a breath test. (Again the fiscal note says the cost would be insignificant, but if it's true 40-45% of drivers refuse breath tests, the cost of the devices and their monitoring would be significant. In addition, Rep. Glenn Hegar's SB 534 allowing employees with concealed carry permits to leave their gun in their locked car in an employer's parking lot. Honestly I could go either way on both of those, but would be interested in readers' thoughts.
Now would be the time if you wanted to contact your state senator and let them know your druthers on these topics.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Can cameras in downtown Dallas look up?
Can new surveillance cameras in Dallas peer into windows of downtown buildings? Robert Wilonsky at Unfair Park poses the question, following up on a readers' query.Wilonsky quotes a downtown apartment dweller who swears a nearby camera can peer into her window, asking, "would YOU want City Hall to have the ability to see you lounging around your house in your weekend worst, sans bra or shirt, as you were doing daily relaxing activities around your home?"
Uh ... well, maybe if you're Harold Hurtt?
My advice: Don't worry, ma'am. I'm sure the snot-nosed 18-year old security guard monitoring the video feed won't have any improper thoughts!
RELATED: Dallas cops share surveillance tapes with private businesses, and Police surveillance cameras zoom half a mile.
UPDATE: More from Unfair Park.
Youth Commission News Juggernaut
Several more items related to the Texas Youth Commission deserve Grits readers attention:
- The House Corrections Committee will hold hearings Thursday and Friday to hear bills related to TYC.
- Mike Ward at the Austin Statesman reported yesterday that Rick Perry probably didn't have Constitutional authority to appoint a special master for TYC.
- Kuff questions whether the TYC board will be allowed to resign and along with Capitol Annex, wonders what did Rick Perry's people know?
- R.G. Ratcliffe at Texas Politics also says Perry should have seen the scandal coming. The Supreme Irony of Life notes that former Congressman Dick Armey forwarded complaints of sexual abuse at TYC to Perry's office in 2001.
- Capitol Annex also has a discussion of two more top TYC officials - Linda Reyes and Neil Nichols who quit rather than be fired.
- AFSCME's Dee Simpson thinks guards will pay the price for legislators neglecting TYC reforms.
- Aaron Peña says TYC employees should be able to talk to their legislators.
- Lisa Sandberg at the Houston Chronicle reports that a grand jury is finally hearing testimony regarding alleged West Texas sex abuse cases.
- Quorum Report says the House today endorsed an amendment creating a special prosecutor for the TYC scandal, but the bill was sidetracked by a point of order.
- The first lawsuit from the TYC scandal was filed this week. Bet it won't be the last.
Senate Finance to TDCJ: Have an extra slice of pie!
In the movie Radio, Cuba Gooding Jr. played a retarded man befriended by a local high school football coach. In an early scene, the coach took Radio to a diner to talk, and when it came time to order dessert the waitress asked which he wanted of two kinds of pie. "Both," Radio cheerfully responded, to which the coach laughed and said, "Give the man both!"That's awfully generous. But what if that second slice of pie cost $100 million per year? If you're the Texas Senate Finance Committee, the answer is still "Both," or at least it was yesterday when they approved the budget for three new prison units. (You can listen to the 1.5 hour meeting here.)
The Finance Committee budgeted only $34 million per year in bond debt charges, but that won't cover staffing and operations costs. In its Legislative Appropriations Request, TDCJ estimated the annual cost to staff and operate three new prisons would be $72 million. Not one person mentioned those costs during the debate over this item yesterday - senators debated the issue as though simply building new prisons were the only costs involved.
Regular readers know Texas prisons face an overincarceration crisis. The Legislative Budget Board estimates that at current trends the state will be 17,000 prison bed short by 2012. There are three possible solutions: Build more prisons, expand treatment and incarceration alternatives, or lease more contract beds. Senate Finance chose all three! They backed Whitmire and Rep. Jerry Madden's aggressive treatment package, but also supported issuing nearly a quarter billion in bonds to build three new prison units, and boosted the budget for more contract beds.
As yesterday's debate made clear, though, the estimate of a 17,000 bed shortfall includes many assumptions, most importantly that no treatment or diversion programs will be created and that parole rates remain at their historic lows. After being called on the carpet by the Sunset Commission last fall, the parole board's release rates have increased from 26% to 30%, said Whitmire, and if they continued at that rate there will be no need for new prisons.
The good news: Nobody disputed funding for Whitmire and Madden's treatment package, which has so far continued to receive bipartisan support. Whitmire explained that treatment proposals were designed to facilitate higher parole rates because the parole board refuses to release many nonviolent DWI and drug offenders without treatment. Today, said Whitmire, more people are on waiting lists for treatment - after which they would be eligible for release - than the state is renting in contract beds. That means if Texas just eliminated the waiting lists for treatment, it would solve the short-term overcrowding crisis.
However Whitmire also expressed realism that "the leadership" (read, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst) wanted new prisons "for political purposes," and admitted that was trumping the need to choose between priorities. "The leadership" wanted bonding capacity for six new units, said Whitmire, and wanted three new units to be constructed sooner than later.
The debate broke down between three factions: Senators Whitmire and Royce West believed that with nine figures in new treatment spending and 6,100 new penal treatment beds the capacity crisis would be resolved. Whitmire reluctantly acquiesced to demands from "the leadership," he said, by gaining a concession that a Rider would put off new spending for a year and base new building decisions on Legislative Budget Board population growth estimates.
Senator Troy Fraser said he agreed Whitmire's treatment plan should work, and supported the compromise "rider," but he also wanted new prisons built as a "pop off valve" in case something went wrong. Chairman Steve Ogden seemed to be in this camp, referring to new prisons as a "contingency."
If the treatment program worked, said Fraser, he would join Whitmire down the line in closing some of Texas more outdated, expensive units - Mountain View and Gatesville were specifically named. (Whitmire said prisoners at Mountain View cost $67 per day to maintain, compared to $40 per day average statewide. It'd be interesting to see a breakdown, wouldn't it, of each unit's costs?) Everyone recognized that closing units would be politically dicey - at one point Fraser suggested the Rider leave the decision of which units to close to an "independent entity."
Only Sen. Tommy Williams thought new prisons would likely be necessary and opposed any talk of closing old units. He predicted parole rates' recent rise could not be counted on in the future, and said new prison building should begin immediately, as soon as the budget is approved. (No word on where Williams thinks Texas will find the guards to run these new units - inmates are staffing some of the prisons we've got now.)
This debate is far from over. Whitmire's Rider has yet to be presented, and the House leadership hasn't committed to new prisons the way Lt. Gov. Dewhurst has. Decisions by House Appropriations and a future conference committee lie between this vote and any new prison building. But the likelihood that Texas may construct more prison units looks greater than it did just a couple of weeks ago.
One-hundred million dollars per year and change - that's a mighty expensive slice of pie!
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Urban Affairs to hear Isett's red-light camera ban
Those concerned with using cameras instead of police officers for traffic enforcement may want to make their views known to the Urban Affairs Committee supporting HB 985 by Rep. Carl Isett, which will be heard there tomorrow. Houston, Austin, and other Texas cities have recently installed or decided to install red light cameras.
I've been off this hobby horse for a while, but this blog has long opposed the expansion of red light cameras in particular for a variety of reasons. This bill takes that opposition one step further and prohibits speeding and other traffic enforcement in addition to red light enfocement via cameras at intersections. (In the Senate, John Carona has legislation that would split revenue between locals and the state.) I've covered this ground frequently before, so let me refresh readers' memories of why I don't like camera enforcement of traffic laws:
See also this report on red light cameras in Texas from the House Research Organization.
I've been off this hobby horse for a while, but this blog has long opposed the expansion of red light cameras in particular for a variety of reasons. This bill takes that opposition one step further and prohibits speeding and other traffic enforcement in addition to red light enfocement via cameras at intersections. (In the Senate, John Carona has legislation that would split revenue between locals and the state.) I've covered this ground frequently before, so let me refresh readers' memories of why I don't like camera enforcement of traffic laws:
- Elkins: "Cameras can't make judgment calls"
- Red light cameras justify installation of surveillance equipment in public spaces
- Civil red light prohibitions may violate equal protection
- Traffic camera proposals frequently revenue driven
- Red light cameras increase rear end accidents
- They also can increase overall injury accidents
- Vendors taking a percentage of revenue have no incentive to reduce red light running
See also this report on red light cameras in Texas from the House Research Organization.
TYC to staff: 'Don't talk to legislators'
First it was "Don't talk to the media." Now it's "Don't talk to the Lege." Just shut up, says the Texas Youth Commission to its employees, and let Ed Owens do the talking for everyone!
That's wrong - TYC employees pay taxes just like everybody else and have every right to inform legislators of their job conditions and what's happening on the ground. Thanks to the TYC employee who forwarded this latest memo from TYC management to its employees:
That's wrong - TYC employees pay taxes just like everybody else and have every right to inform legislators of their job conditions and what's happening on the ground. Thanks to the TYC employee who forwarded this latest memo from TYC management to its employees:
Subject: Legislature Requests
Dear TYC Staff:
I know you are all overwhelmed with the attention on the agency right now and the many requests for information that you are receiving from both the media and the legislature. As always, but especially during this time, it is important that we provide timely and accurate information to legislators and their staff. Part of my responsibility is to provide this information to them. When you receive requests for information from legislators and their staff, please either politely refer them to my office or find out what information they are seeking and contact me so that I may provide it to them.
If you have any questions, please contact me at any time. Thank you for continuing to work so hard for our youth.
Sincerely,
Kerri Davidson
Chief of Staff
Texas Youth Commission
Today at the Lege, and a note to grumpy staffers
For today's criminal justice action at the Lege, see Grits' previews of bills up in the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee (Parts One and Two).
And an aside: This morning I had a call from a legislative staffer who is basically quite unhappy that I'm previewing bills before committee hearings because his bill might be changed. I explained that's why I'd called their office, to find out what was happening with it, but the staffer grumpily replied, "That's the problem with blogs, Scott, you can just go out there and say whatever you want."
Funny - I thought the problem with blogs was that we didn't call sources before writing about stuff like "real" journalists! I asked this staffer to tell me the real deal if he was afraid I was going to misrepresent the bill. "That's why I called you," I said. But he wouldn't discuss it and basically just wanted to express his unhappiness that I was writing about it at all before the committee hearing because they were "working on it" and things could change.
Look, there's no doubt that bills change during the process, there's no doubt that a lot of bills have flaws as filed that get worked out later, and there's no doubt that most bills filed will die. I hope nothing I've written gave anyone a different impression. But the truth is I'm tracking criminal justice legislation more closely than the MSM on the blog, and I think that's the real source of this staffer's resentment.
Folks at the capitol are used to the committee process happening more or less beyond scrutiny. Hearings are frequently dog and pony shows where the press and the public is presented with an image pols want to present, but the real heavy lifting on the details of legislation all happens before the hearing, or in cases where a bill is disputed, behind the scenes after the hearing is over.
Lobbyists track bills closely. When committee agendas are posted they go through the bills to see what they care about and begin to prepare for the hearing by lobbying members, lining up speakers, preparing written testimony. The important work they do happens before the members meet, but typically the public isn't even aware of the issue until a hearing occurs.
What I'm trying to do - on the issues I cover - is give blog readers the same access to information that special interests with lobbyists have enjoyed for ages. Thanks to the political version of Heisenberg Principle, more thoroughly examining these murky settings will inevitably change the process, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Part of how bad policy gets made is that nobody pays attention to it until it's too late, and part of making good policy is giving those with an interest enough information to participate in supporting it.
I recognize that it would be easier to negotiate bills if nobody but lobbyists and special interests knew they existed - I get that. I even sympathize with the overworked staffers' plight. But I don't think that's necessarily an argument for not casting greater light on the process. In fact, I'm sure it's not.
So to any other grumpy staffers out there: You know I'm previewing bills every week in four committees - Senate Criminal Justice, House Corrections, House Criminal Jurisprudence, and House Law Enforcement. I'm analyzing them as filed unless I'm aware of a substitute. I want to get it right. But it doesn't help to get stonewalled.
More information and communication, not less, is the best solution for legislators dealing with blogs.
And an aside: This morning I had a call from a legislative staffer who is basically quite unhappy that I'm previewing bills before committee hearings because his bill might be changed. I explained that's why I'd called their office, to find out what was happening with it, but the staffer grumpily replied, "That's the problem with blogs, Scott, you can just go out there and say whatever you want."
Funny - I thought the problem with blogs was that we didn't call sources before writing about stuff like "real" journalists! I asked this staffer to tell me the real deal if he was afraid I was going to misrepresent the bill. "That's why I called you," I said. But he wouldn't discuss it and basically just wanted to express his unhappiness that I was writing about it at all before the committee hearing because they were "working on it" and things could change.
Look, there's no doubt that bills change during the process, there's no doubt that a lot of bills have flaws as filed that get worked out later, and there's no doubt that most bills filed will die. I hope nothing I've written gave anyone a different impression. But the truth is I'm tracking criminal justice legislation more closely than the MSM on the blog, and I think that's the real source of this staffer's resentment.
Folks at the capitol are used to the committee process happening more or less beyond scrutiny. Hearings are frequently dog and pony shows where the press and the public is presented with an image pols want to present, but the real heavy lifting on the details of legislation all happens before the hearing, or in cases where a bill is disputed, behind the scenes after the hearing is over.
Lobbyists track bills closely. When committee agendas are posted they go through the bills to see what they care about and begin to prepare for the hearing by lobbying members, lining up speakers, preparing written testimony. The important work they do happens before the members meet, but typically the public isn't even aware of the issue until a hearing occurs.
What I'm trying to do - on the issues I cover - is give blog readers the same access to information that special interests with lobbyists have enjoyed for ages. Thanks to the political version of Heisenberg Principle, more thoroughly examining these murky settings will inevitably change the process, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Part of how bad policy gets made is that nobody pays attention to it until it's too late, and part of making good policy is giving those with an interest enough information to participate in supporting it.
I recognize that it would be easier to negotiate bills if nobody but lobbyists and special interests knew they existed - I get that. I even sympathize with the overworked staffers' plight. But I don't think that's necessarily an argument for not casting greater light on the process. In fact, I'm sure it's not.
So to any other grumpy staffers out there: You know I'm previewing bills every week in four committees - Senate Criminal Justice, House Corrections, House Criminal Jurisprudence, and House Law Enforcement. I'm analyzing them as filed unless I'm aware of a substitute. I want to get it right. But it doesn't help to get stonewalled.
More information and communication, not less, is the best solution for legislators dealing with blogs.
Urinalysis flaws lead to 'most of the time' justice
I've wondered before how it is that accuracy so often appears to have become optional in forensic science? That question arises agains with a report from the SA Express News about the Bexar probation department's urinalysis division ('New eyes' oversee Bexar urinalysis lab," 3-16).
Unrefrigerated urine samples cannot be accurately tested after seven days, but the lab routinely tests and reports results for samples beyond that time, and last summer had to throw out 15,000 samples that had long since expired. Still, they cannot test the volume of samples in a timely fashion, as "four technicians and a manager run up to 19,000 drug tests a month on up to 5,000 urine samples from probationers."
So they know it's a less accurate test, volume and understaffing preclude careful protocols, but decisions are being made based on the results that affect thousands of probationers' lives. How many probationers are revoked or sanctioned each year because of false positives? Quien sabe? No one knows. No one seems to care.
I find the use of sloppy science in the pursuit of justice abhorrent and irresponsible. I'm always surprised when such situations are tolerated as business as usual. I must admit the whole thing makes me feel naive, like I give too much credit for good intentions to folks inside the system.
Unrefrigerated urine samples cannot be accurately tested after seven days, but the lab routinely tests and reports results for samples beyond that time, and last summer had to throw out 15,000 samples that had long since expired. Still, they cannot test the volume of samples in a timely fashion, as "four technicians and a manager run up to 19,000 drug tests a month on up to 5,000 urine samples from probationers."
"I can tell you that thing's been a pain in the ass for more than a year," [new lab director David] Abbott said.The lab still doesn't have enough refrigerators to chill all the urine samples and many sit out unrefrigerated, Abbott said.
Abbot told the paper samples don't sit out past the seven day deadline, but probation officers quoted in the article had plenty of examples where they did. Abbot responded that officers were playing "gotcha," which I'd have to agree is correct: He made a sweeping, categorical statement that was untrue, and somebody said, "No it's not. Gotcha!" But is that really a valid criticism, or just whining from someone caught spinning the story?
Indeed, if the probation department's management wasn't at war with its officers - as of Friday, I heard from a Bexar P.O., Director Bill Fitzgerald was in the "Fs" in his retention interviews - its employees probably wouldn't be outing fibs anonymously in the newspaper, so even if he's right about critics' motivations, it still represents a management failure.
The situation also shows why increasingly defense attorneys rely when they can (i.e., for non-indigent clients) on independent verification of crime lab results. Reported the Express-News:Even if the samples are screened in time, they aren't as accurate as a "confirmation," a different, more expensive test the county lab can't do.So let's review. Bexar doesn't use a confirming test that would make certain whether someone uses drugs. On the less accurate tests they do run, by the tens of thousands, samples are left unrefrigerated for the max possible time, in some cases longer, to the point where 15,000 samples had to be thrown out last summer and defense lawyers don't rely on the lab and pay for private testing. Still, the only reason to test is to give prosecutors and judges information on which to base supervision decisions for the offender!"They don't keep the samples, they don't confirm the samples, they just don't have the money to do that," defense lawyer Ernest Acevedo III said.
That's why Acevedo sends some clients to private labs after they submit urine samples to the county.
Acevedo said whether he has his clients get an independent test depends on a number of factors. He believes the positive screens usually are accurate, but "'most of the time' isn't good enough in our kind of work."
Abbott agreed confirmation tests are the only way to be certain someone has forbidden drugs in his system, but that they are impossibly expensive for the lab, which is funded by a combination of state grants and money from the basic supervision fund.
So they know it's a less accurate test, volume and understaffing preclude careful protocols, but decisions are being made based on the results that affect thousands of probationers' lives. How many probationers are revoked or sanctioned each year because of false positives? Quien sabe? No one knows. No one seems to care.
I find the use of sloppy science in the pursuit of justice abhorrent and irresponsible. I'm always surprised when such situations are tolerated as business as usual. I must admit the whole thing makes me feel naive, like I give too much credit for good intentions to folks inside the system.
It really does seem to be true that accuracy has frequently become optional in forensic science, despite Acevedo's declaration that "'most of the time' isn't good enough in our kind of work." For indigent clients who can't afford independent testing, "most of the time" justice is all they get.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Sentencing Tuesday in Criminal Jurisprudence, Part Two
Time to finish up Grits' pre-hearing examination of bills being heard in Tuesday's Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee. (See Part One.) The bills up in the second half of Tuesday's agenda perhaps aren't as sexy as those discussed earlier, but several still deserve attention:
Close loophole avoiding treatment diversion
HB 1610 by Madden is a small, but needed bill that affects sentencing for first-time drug offenders convicted of a small quantity possession offense, diverting them to community supervision with drug treatment. The bill plugs a loophole I've written about previously that allows local judges to sentence offenders to county jail time as a condition of probation. In Harris County, in particular, this accounts for most local jail overcrowding.
Right now state law allows judges to impose the sentence for a Class A misdemeanor instead of a state jail felony in the interest of justice. However, some judges and prosecutors, particularly in Harris County, have abused this provision. After HB 2668 passed in 2003 requiring judges to place offenders on community supervision on the first offense, a few judges began sentencing offenders under the provision changed by this bill to serve county jail time instead of being placed on felony probation. This bill requires the judge to order community supervision on the first offense, closing the loophole.
Nuther sex offender enhancement: Feel safe yet?
In contradistinction to the mostly good bills on Tuesday's agenda, Patrick Rose has a sex offender enhancement up (HB 1597) that would expand the category of offenders who receive mandatory life sentences. Uh ... "This is Reality calling Rep. Rose - come in, please." How many times must it be repeated? The prisons are full and until that problem is solved it's irresponsible to keep mindlessly boosting criminal penalties in response to every outburst of politicized fearmongering. I would have hoped Mr. Rose (who is a former campaign client of mine) would have already gotten his anti-sex offender vote in for the session with HB 8 - it would be a ridiculous waste of both the House's time and valuable prison space for this committee to pass HB 1597, too.
Divert Class B Misdemeanor Defendants From Jail
I called Rep. Juan Escobar's office to try to better understand his HB 1939 - the right staffer wasn't there when I called and I didn't get a call back on Friday. But this bill takes a good idea - diverting Class B misdemeanors from the jail system, and potentially muddies it in ways that I frankly don't 100% understand. Given that, I'd normally make an extra effort to figure out and critique it, but I heard from a different source that the bill author is making a few minor changes that may address my concerns, so let's just see what the substitute looks like. In particular, many counties' community justice councils are barely active and I'm not sure that's the best entity to develop rulemaking envisioned in the bill. Giving it to the district judges perhaps makes more sense.
My source speculated that the changing bill language might be why I hadn't heard back from the staffer - things may just still be in flux. There are a couple of other good bills assigned to this committee that I'll discuss soon that would allow police officers to "cite and summons" instead of arrest for low-level misdemeanors. HB 1939 aims to similarly handle Class B defendants through alternative systems without booking them into the jail. When I figure out more about it I'll let you know.
Expanding access to probation
While distinctions must be made between violent and non-violent offenders, not all violent offenders were created equal, and too often the law doesn't give authorities enough leeway to balance every competing interest and circumstance. HB 1513 by Haggerty would give judges authority to order community supervision for certain violent (so-called '3-g') offenses, basically removing mandatory minimum incarceration stints in favor of giving discretion to jurists.
Close loophole avoiding treatment diversion
HB 1610 by Madden is a small, but needed bill that affects sentencing for first-time drug offenders convicted of a small quantity possession offense, diverting them to community supervision with drug treatment. The bill plugs a loophole I've written about previously that allows local judges to sentence offenders to county jail time as a condition of probation. In Harris County, in particular, this accounts for most local jail overcrowding.
Right now state law allows judges to impose the sentence for a Class A misdemeanor instead of a state jail felony in the interest of justice. However, some judges and prosecutors, particularly in Harris County, have abused this provision. After HB 2668 passed in 2003 requiring judges to place offenders on community supervision on the first offense, a few judges began sentencing offenders under the provision changed by this bill to serve county jail time instead of being placed on felony probation. This bill requires the judge to order community supervision on the first offense, closing the loophole.
Nuther sex offender enhancement: Feel safe yet?
In contradistinction to the mostly good bills on Tuesday's agenda, Patrick Rose has a sex offender enhancement up (HB 1597) that would expand the category of offenders who receive mandatory life sentences. Uh ... "This is Reality calling Rep. Rose - come in, please." How many times must it be repeated? The prisons are full and until that problem is solved it's irresponsible to keep mindlessly boosting criminal penalties in response to every outburst of politicized fearmongering. I would have hoped Mr. Rose (who is a former campaign client of mine) would have already gotten his anti-sex offender vote in for the session with HB 8 - it would be a ridiculous waste of both the House's time and valuable prison space for this committee to pass HB 1597, too.
Divert Class B Misdemeanor Defendants From Jail
I called Rep. Juan Escobar's office to try to better understand his HB 1939 - the right staffer wasn't there when I called and I didn't get a call back on Friday. But this bill takes a good idea - diverting Class B misdemeanors from the jail system, and potentially muddies it in ways that I frankly don't 100% understand. Given that, I'd normally make an extra effort to figure out and critique it, but I heard from a different source that the bill author is making a few minor changes that may address my concerns, so let's just see what the substitute looks like. In particular, many counties' community justice councils are barely active and I'm not sure that's the best entity to develop rulemaking envisioned in the bill. Giving it to the district judges perhaps makes more sense.
My source speculated that the changing bill language might be why I hadn't heard back from the staffer - things may just still be in flux. There are a couple of other good bills assigned to this committee that I'll discuss soon that would allow police officers to "cite and summons" instead of arrest for low-level misdemeanors. HB 1939 aims to similarly handle Class B defendants through alternative systems without booking them into the jail. When I figure out more about it I'll let you know.
Expanding access to probation
While distinctions must be made between violent and non-violent offenders, not all violent offenders were created equal, and too often the law doesn't give authorities enough leeway to balance every competing interest and circumstance. HB 1513 by Haggerty would give judges authority to order community supervision for certain violent (so-called '3-g') offenses, basically removing mandatory minimum incarceration stints in favor of giving discretion to jurists.
Do you know your rights at a traffic stop?
Take the quiz from Flex Your Rights to see if you know your constituional rights when police pull you over at a traffic stop. Via Drug War Rant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
